The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia users with a recent ACC notice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete (first preference) or Rename (second preference) I'm not sure what the point of this category is, but it at minimum needs a rename to change "Wikipedia users" to the standard "Wikipedians". Additionally, however, I would argue deletion as I don't see how categorizing such users would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. The "recent" part of the name is also problematic. How long is recent? Is someone going to go back and remove users from this category at some point? Suggested rename target would be Category:Wikipedians with ACC notices if no consensus to delete, although, once again, I don't see how it would be helpful to categorize such users. VegaDark (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or at the very least rename. In addition to the above, have you checked ACC? I've had a notice from one of these myself in the last few months. Presumably it relates to WP:ACC, though this isn't at all clear - it seems to be a multi-guess test as to exactly what is meant by this category. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to WP:ACC, as anyone who receives an ACC notice would know. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 07:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would they? How? It doesn't make that clear anywhere. Grutness...wha? 23:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know. I'm with Grutness, I thought it was for the Accident Comp Corp. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not at all clear why tracking which users receive these requests would be helpful, let alone those who've recently received one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users staying incognito (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Improperly named with "Users" instead of "Wikipedians", but additionally is an unencyclopedic, non-collaborative categorization that doesn't benefit the encyclopdeia in any way. Not to mention these users become a lot less incognito by being in this category. VegaDark (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Attempting to stifle a "LOL". Orderinchaos 02:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - has no obvious use for collaboration (or for any other purpose). Robofish (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm pretty sure a majority of Wikipedians are incognito; this category serves no encyclopedic purpose. — Σxplicit 06:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have created the userbox for my user page. The reason was that I have been asked questions about my real life, and that some people tend to draw conclusions from the fact that someone is not giving an answer to a question. The template signals that not giving an answer has nothing to do with the specific content of a question. I have put the template in the template space, as other editors may find it useful for similar purposes. The template should probably be renamed. Actually, I don't know which category would be best for the template, and I just chose one that seemed to make sense.  Cs32en  21:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template isn't up for deletion, only the category is. Templates don't have to have categories attached to them, so don't feel like you need to come up with something. Also, I'd suggest the template is userfied. VegaDark (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that important for me, I've put the template in the template space, because I thought that other Wikipedians might find it useful. I have actually been asked by someone whether I would be able to speak a specific language, and this was the reason why I created the template.  Cs32en  02:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Public Schools Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Public Schools Association (Western Australia)

Nominator's rationale: Really more of a cleanup task than anything else - "PSA" although a formal title is vague to most ears and several others exist around the place, although not yet on WP. It is internally consistent within Australia as the Victorian equivalent include the state (and the Queensland one, currently at Category:GPS Schools, should as its parent article does). Was suggested in another CfD on 10 May by Occuli and I thought I'd get it going. Orderinchaos 18:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - google comes up with quite a few which include the phrase. Queensland, New Jersey, Chicago. Occuli (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 14:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Malone College to Category:Malone University

Nominator's rationale: The institution was renamed last year. - Eureka Lott 18:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. To match parent article. — Σxplicit 06:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: redirect the categories to "Local government" equivalents as clearly redundant.--Aervanath (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As seen within (Category:Government in the United States by state)

I've been noticing that for *some* states in the United States, there are both "Category:Government *in* (statename)" and "Category:Government *of* (statename)" namespace categories. e.g.

• "Category:Government in California",
• "Category:Government in Massachusetts"
• "Category:Government in New York",

etc.

I suggest a bulk rename of the "Category:Government *in* (statename)" catagories to be replaced by "Category:Local government in (statename)". (As seen: Some article already follow this in Category:Local government in the United States In so-doing it would mean that everything within the state thereafter would fall under the proposed "Local government" category listed above within that state. And the "Category:Government of (statename)" which also currently exists would continue-on as the main namespace for the actual Government.(But at the state-wide level).

Some articles have already started to utilize this alternate area including New Jersey (:Category:Local government in New Jersey) and Oregon Category:Local government in Oregon. -- CaribDigita (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of them will need to be nominated and tagged if you want them renamed. It would not be unreasonable to wait a day to add the rest to see if it appears that there will be support. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• rename as "local government in...". This will solve the confusion created by the editor who started the "Category:Government *in* (statename)" categories and then made them parents of the "Category:Government *of* (statename)" categories, which made little sense. I believe you will find there are only 3 such categories that have to be dealth with--as already listed above. Hmains (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• someone who knows how really ought to tag the parent and the three state cats. Hmains (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is this about the government of the State itself (which should be State government) or of entities within the state? If the latter the addition of "local" would be appropriate. (note: I am English, and so hesitate to interfere). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'local government' as a term is used in the US is for all government below (within) the U.S. State level: cities, counties, special districts, etc.--not the state government itself. Hmains (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete, empty. Kbdank71 15:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Astraea class cruisers (1893) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. An obsolete category superseded by Category:Astraea class cruisers, which does not include the unnecessary disambiguation. The disambiguation also happens to be wrong, the first ship of the class was launched in 1892, not 1893, hence if there was any need to disambiguate, both the article and the category would be titled Astraea class cruiser (1892), rather than the current Astraea class cruiser. All relevant articles now use Category:Astraea class cruisers which matches the article title. Benea (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Maralia (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Azerbaijan surnames to Category:Azerbaijani surnames

Nominator's rationale: 'Azerbaijani' is the standard adjective form on wikip, as in Category:Azerbaijani names, Category:Azerbaijani culture, Category:Azerbaijani language, etc. Mayumashu (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. For consistency purposes. — Σxplicit 16:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - The surnames pertain to the Azerbaijani people/language, not the country of Azerbaijan. Orderinchaos 18:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename to match standard form used by other categories. Alansohn (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete--Aervanath (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Public domain films to Category:Public domain films in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Please note that many films in this category are not in the public domain worldwide. Some may not be public domain in the United States.

One solution would be to rename it and then move all articles from Public domain films into Public domain films in the United States. Later the original category could be recreated as a parent category with sub-categories Category:Public domain films in the United States, Category:Public domain films in Europe and so on. Still later one might be able to place articles for those films that are public domain in more than one region.

An alternative to renaming is to define usable inclusion criteria and for each article examine the release date, country of origin and latest date of death of all the creators of the film and leave only those that meet the criteria in Category:Public domain films. That seems a lot of work. 84user (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Which films are not in the public domain where? In any case, the films are not all in the United States, so the proposed new name is not appropriate. Perhaps "Films that are public domain in the United States". Shreevatsa (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nom Reply: Yes, Category:Films that are public domain in the United States is a better name, can this proposal just be edited to reflect that?

As to which films are not public domain, there are many that are still under copyright in Europe and other regions of the world (generally any where the longest lived creator has died less than 70 years ago). I have been removing a few, such as Around the World in 80 Days (1988 film) (which I gather is also copyrighted in the USA).

See also my related proposal to move List of films in the public domain to List of films in the public domain in the United States. 84user (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the copyright status of a film in a particular country is not really defining for a film and all films will ultimately move from copyrighted to public domain over time - yes, long times perhaps - but this seems like a current category, as with all athletes will eventually be former athletes, etc., either by retirement or death. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it but only as a parent category for Category:1922 films etc (as it is), assuming that this is correct. Do not under any circumstances start a 'by country' categorisation scheme. Or delete it; the copyright status of a film in a particular country is not only undefining but completely independent of the film. (The article for a film is not going to list all the countries/regions in which it is and is not public domain, I hope, and so there will be nothing in the article to justify the category. So the category should not appear on any articles. There should be a note on Category:1922 films etc to explain to what extent these films are now all public-domain.) Picking Charade at random, its public domain status is not mentioned anywhere in the article; something not mentioned in quite a long article can hardly be defining. Occuli (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What about 1922 films that are not PD ? NVO (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If the category is limited to the status of films in the US, there is no such a thing. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment: Ok, I am beginning to see both User:Carlossuarez46's and User talk:Occuli's points. We only allow "defining categories" as I understand it. That is a new concept for me. Ok, then I suggest renaming to a parent Category:Films released before 1923, because not all pre-1923 films are in the public domain worldwide (Germany again, maybe also Switzerland). Alternatively I would now support delete as it seems simpler to decouple the categories from the complex and changing nature of "public domain". I am hoping that List of films in the public domain can instead be brought into compliance with wikipedia policies and serve instead. 84user (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As it is, the category is completely unworkable. If changed in scope to just the US, so that it would be theoretically possible to determine whether an article belongs or not, it would still be problematic because there are US-PD films whose copyright status is not self-evident (e.g. films between 1922 and 1978 without proper registration/renewal), which means it require citations. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The citations ought be either within the List of films in the public domain or within the article for the film itself, preferably both. 71.76.225.98 (talk) 06:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Neither is actually happening. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is there an article yet on what the rules are in various countries on when a film enters the public domain? If so, it likely ought to be consulted before a final vote is made. If not, perhaps one ought to be created before a decision is made on this? 71.76.225.98 (talk) 06:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries' copyright length gives the number of years, but that's only the start of it. Films are classified as either corporate-owned works with a fixed term after creation (since corporations can be immortal) or as collective works where expiration is determined by the death of its last surviving creator. Fortunately only certain key contributors (e.g. writer, producer, director) are considered a film's creators for copyright purposes but this is probably not standardized internationally, and elements that go into the film (e.g. set design, source material) have their own copyrights that could outlast that of the film. (It's a Wonderful Life is a noteworthy case on this point.) This external page gives a pretty good overview of the question. To further complicate the question, the US used to require registration and renewal, so in that country works could fall into PD for reasons other than simple age. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'd just like to throw out here the fact that almost all countries are parties to the Berne Convention, which stipulates that works are not to be given longer terms of copyright in a foreign country than they are in their country of origin (and most countries follow this stipulation as well). Therefore, if a film was made in the U.S., and is in the public domain in the U.S., then it is effectively in the public domain worldwide. bd2412 T 05:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Berne Convention doesn't stipulate that works not be given longer copyright in their country of origin, but yeah, many countries follow the Rule of the shorter term. Shreevatsa (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Berne allows countries to "opt out" of that rule. Rather notably, Canada, Mexico, and the PRChina (among others) do not apply that rule to US works. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bands with multiple bass players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining criterion. Why not bands with multiple guitarists, keyboardists or drummers? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion Not a defining criterion. Orderinchaos 03:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - not defining. Occuli (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sigh. Debresser (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the multiple drummer one would be defining, if a little trivial... Anyho, delete! Lugnuts (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Interesting, but doesn't seem defining. Alansohn (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Guantanamo Bay captives alleged to have returned to the fight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overly narrow category; empty except for nearly identical mainspace article. Gilliam (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Overly narrow, more likely than not unencyclopaedic and likely unverifiable too (alleged by whom - the authorities, the media, their mother?). Orderinchaos 03:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Awkwardly narrow and underpopulated category. — Σxplicit 04:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete allegations category, and this category seems to imply that those in it must have been in "the fight" before their capture (hence, a return to it). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Lists of released Guantanamo prisoners who allegedly returned to battle does a much better job than a category (which is empty apart from the list, and so should if kept be renamed or merged to Category:Guantanamo-related lists or similar). Occuli (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, along with a few more of those overly specific "Guantanamo Bay captives" categories. Especially those that include the word "alleged", which is non-encyclopedial. Debresser (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.